HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1982/10/19 Item 10COUN~ AGENDA STATEMENT •
IT~ITLE
r'
Item 10
(SUBMITTED
The City
Family o
at the C
with a c
extension
Meeting Date 10/19/82
Resolution No. /~O %r2-approving Change Order #2 for approval of $18,393
cost overruns on the renovation of Jimmy's on the Green Family Restaurant
;Y; Director of Building and Housing=-~~~"~- (4/5ths Vote: Yesx No )
Assistant City Manage
~ouncil at their meeting of` January 5, 1982 approved an agreement with Jimmy's
Fine Restaurants, Inc. for expansion and renovation of the restaurant facility
ala Vista Municipal Golf Course. Work on the project began on January 19, 1982
npletion date of June 14, 1982. On July 13, 1982 the City Council approved an
~f the contract to September 1, 1982.
RECOMMENDIATION: That Council
Approve he cost overrun of $18,393 and apply it to the liquidated damages equal to the
monthly nt of $8,000 beginning September 1, 1982.
BOARD/CON~IISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A
_,_~
DISCUSSI N:
The foll ing listed items not covered by the contract were completed by the contractor
during t e course of the contracted remodel and were responsible for the cost overrun:
• Ne ceiling the and grid for dining room No. 1 $3,250
Th bid documents on this item called for replacement of missing
t he and painting. The Lessee/Contractor made the decision to
re lace the grid system and the without our prior approval because
in his judgment the finished ceiling would look patched and would
de ract from the overall appearance of the dining room. Without
qu stion, the replacement of ceiling the in this dining room will
ma e a significant improvement in the overall appearance of the
fa ility. With the number of tiles missing and the construction of
th gazebos, we can support the additional cost of this improvement.
2. Pl~mb north wall of dining room No. 1 $3,492
Th top plate of the north wall was out of plumb four inches which
re uired a 10-day delay in the work while the structural engineer
pr pared a design and structural calculations to make the wall
st ucturally sound. This type of problem would not be known to the
co tractor when bidding and is a justified change order.
3. Up rade banquet room panels $3,400
ThE
to
• the
by
orm A-113
Lessee/Contractor during the course of construction made trips
look at several banquet room movable walls and after viewing
m again made an independent decision to upgrade the partitions
adding carpeting to them. We agree that the added carpeting m~3de
(Rev. 11/79)
• •
Page 2,
4.
Item 10
Meeting Date 10/19/82
m far more attractive and also improved the sound transmission
el to 37 decibels. The original specifications only called for
id wood movable panels but with the addition of the carpeting
does enhance the banquet rooms and lowers the sound transmission
a Crating, which enhances the use of the rooms for banquets and
tings which is a benefit to the City as well as the Lessee. We
support this change order.
le
so
it
to
me
ca
twater Authority Fees
$6,206
Fo building, the Sweetwater Authority would not quote any fees to
th bidders. Some of the bidders typed on the bid document that the
bi price includes the Sweetwater Authority fees, other bidders
in luded an estimate amount to cover the fees. We tried to get the
Sw etwater Authority to give an estimate of fees to be paid and they
wo ld not give a quote. This is a legimitate request for a change order.
5. Re lace flooring in golfers lounge $1,400
Ov r the past years water damage had occurred due to leakage from
th bar sink and the restrooms causing delamination of the plywood sub-
fl or. PJew floor covering, especially ceramic tile, could not be laid
ov r the existing plywood, hence the need to install a new subfloor.
• Re lace flooring and add floor joist in Room #2 $ 645
Th same water damage as noted in Item 5 caused deterioration of
th floor joist system structurally damaging the floor joist making
th replacement of the joists necessary.
TOTAL COST OF OVERRUNS $18,393
Items 2, 4, 5, and 6 are clearly legitimate change orders as they could not be deter-
mined at the time of the bidding even though the bidders had inspected the job prior
to su fitting their bid. Items 1 and 3 are more judgmental particularly in view of
the f ct that the Lessee/Contractor made an independent decision to proceed with the
enhan ements without discussing it with the City. It should be noted that changes
of this nature were more likely to happen due to the fact that the contractor and
Jesse are one and the same. ~,Je are confident that other enhancements during the
cours of construction were made solely at the Lessee's expense and probably would
not h ve occurred under normal Contractor/City arrangements. Nevertheless, we can
suppo t Items 1 and 3 ($6,650) as legitimate change orders on this project. We
there ore support the request for the above enumerated change orders in the amount
of $1 ,393 as legitimate cost overruns. If authorized by the City Council, the
$18,3 3 would be offset by $8,000 per month liquidated damages we are assessing
again t the contractor from September 1, 1982 and for each month that the project
is no completed. The $18,393, if approved, would offset the City's. loss of rent
throu_h November 9, 1982. If the project is not completed by that date, the con-
act r will be assessed and we will withhold from final payment on the contract
00 per month or portion thereof until the project is completed.
INAN IAL IMPACT:
The C ty would be expending $18,393 of liquidated damage revenues which otherwise
would accrue to the City.
- / /C~ ~/~